People v. Beaudet, 32 N.Y.2d 371 (1973)

A witness is considered an accomplice as a matter of law if their undisputed actions demonstrate participation in the preparation or execution of a crime, with the intent to assist in its commission, requiring their testimony to be corroborated for a conviction.

Summary

Beaudet was convicted of felony murder for his role in a bank robbery. The key issue on appeal was whether a prosecution witness, Berube, should have been deemed an accomplice as a matter of law, which would necessitate corroboration of his testimony. The Court of Appeals held that Berube was indeed an accomplice because his actions, including stealing the getaway car and handling weapons, demonstrated his intent to facilitate the crime. Failure to instruct the jury that Berube was an accomplice was reversible error, requiring a new trial.

Facts

Beaudet, along with Pilón, Dupuis, Couture, and Berube, planned to rob a bank in the U.S. Berube stole a car for $100, hid it, and later installed stolen license plates with Beaudet. Berube also transported sawed-off carbines and tested a pistol with Beaudet, knowing the plan involved firearms to overcome resistance. Although Berube declined to participate directly in the robbery, he expected a “gift” for his assistance. After the robbery, Beaudet was found with American currency, some of which matched serial numbers from the stolen bank funds.

Procedural History

Beaudet was convicted of first-degree murder after a jury trial and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. Beaudet appealed to the New York Court of Appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in not instructing the jury that Berube was an accomplice as a matter of law.

Issue(s)

Whether the trial court erred by not instructing the jury that the prosecution witness, Berube, was an accomplice as a matter of law, requiring corroboration of his testimony for the defendant’s conviction.

Holding

Yes, because Berube’s undisputed actions in preparing for the armed robbery—stealing a car, providing a place to store it, changing the license plates, handling weapons, and expecting payment—demonstrated his intent to facilitate the commission of the crime, thereby making him an accomplice as a matter of law.

Court’s Reasoning

The court reasoned that under the former Code of Criminal Procedure, a conviction cannot be based solely on an accomplice’s testimony without corroborating evidence connecting the defendant to the crime. An accomplice is someone so connected to the crime that they could have been convicted as a principal or accessory before the fact, meaning they participated in the crime’s preparation or execution with intent to assist. The court stated, “To be an accomplice the witness must have taken part in the preparation or perpetration of the crime, with intent to assist in the crime.” Even if Berube did not participate in the actual robbery, his actions facilitated the crime, demonstrating his intent to aid in its commission. The court distinguished this case from others where the witness’s involvement was less direct or their intent less clear. The court emphasized that Berube’s conduct was “not attenuated,” and his knowing participation in preparation was a “substantial factor” in effecting the ultimate crime. Since the evidence established Berube as an accomplice as a matter of law, the trial court’s failure to so instruct the jury was prejudicial error, requiring a new trial. The court noted that accomplices are inherently motivated to shift blame to others, making corroboration essential.